Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 147 posts

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#51

Post by hillbillydilly »

ghastmaster wrote: post #20

I find it hard to believe that ancient creatures that have lived through this many times in history are somehow unable to do it again. The temperature estimates in the article do not eclipse highs in fairly recent history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_periods_and_events_in_... Nor does the rate of change exceed that of what the earth experienced as recently as 8k years before present. https://en.wikipedia.or…

low effort climate denialism posts- oversimplified, pedantic and contrarian, for what? "Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years" https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123324

seriously two clicks.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#52

Post by ghiculescu »

I grew up in Queensland. During school in the late 90s, we were taught the same thing, except the reef was meant to already be gone by today. When I visited a few years ago, it was stunning.

Hopefully this report won’t come true either, but it is hard to believe anyone predicting what Australia will be like in 2100.

In any case, particularly on a forum like this, we should argue about what technological ideas we can use to radically transform this gloomy prediction of the future. Rather than just accepting it as fact.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#53

Post by hnnameblah365 »

Igelau wrote: post #27
globular-toast wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've already reproduced so you've already struck your blow and it's too late to take it back now.

If no one reproduced, there wouldn't be any point to conservation, you dummy.

This is an incredibly anthropocentric perspective and possibly not one shared by the person you're replying to, so the name calling is out of line.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#54

Post by diplodocusaur »

shoo wrote: post #40

One lens to think about this is the lens of species extinction [+]. The world is currently experiencing species extinction at a rate significantly higher than the background rate, due to direct and indirect human causes: > In contrast to the the Big Five [mass extinction events], today’s species losses are driven by a mix of direct and indirect human activities, such as the destruction and fragmentation of habitats,…

I wonder how much of species extinction is inevitably our own through interdependence we are not cognizant of

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#55

Post by Grimm1 »

hnnameblah365 wrote: post #53
Igelau wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no one reproduced, there wouldn't be any point to conservation, you dummy.

This is an incredibly anthropocentric perspective and possibly not one shared by the person you're replying to, so the name calling is out of line.

Until we find something capable of the level of creation and higher order thought we are, preferably without some of our negatives, then being anthropocentric is the only logical view to have.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#56

Post by DesiLurker »

I know this is a sensitive topic with in the west but how about reducing meat consumption (esp red meat) so we cut down ghg emissions. plus more eco-friendly transportation like EVs & fewer flights for vacations.

as the saying goes an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#57

Post by paulcole »

Ancalagon wrote: post #35
minimalist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weak, low-effort responce. There is only so much that can be done by governmental mandate. People have become used to unsustainable lifestyles and it takes lifestyle changes at the individual level to shape our broader impact.

Unfortunately this is the correct answer and I’m just now realizing it. Basically this means everyone going mostly or entirely vegetarian, restricting air travel, clean transport and energy and reduction of general production of crap (not only because the crap itself produces warming but also the shipping).

I get downvoted everytime I say this, but if someone wants to make a difference:

1. Don’t eat meat.

2. Don’t get in airplanes.

3. Don’t drive a car.

4. Live in as small a house/apartment as you can.

5. Don’t have kids.

It turns out that when people ask, “But what can I do?” What they really mean is “What can I do that won’t really inconvenience me that much?”

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#58

Post by ianlevesque »

DesiLurker wrote: post #56

I know this is a sensitive topic with in the west but how about reducing meat consumption (esp red meat) so we cut down ghg emissions. plus more eco-friendly transportation like EVs & fewer flights for vacations. as the saying goes an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

Or we could do something that actually helps like moving transportation and power generation to renewables.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#59

Post by brokensegue »

minimalist wrote: post #21
astockwell wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote.

This is a weak, low-effort responce. There is only so much that can be done by governmental mandate. People have become used to unsustainable lifestyles and it takes lifestyle changes at the individual level to shape our broader impact.

government regulations influence how people live their lives. we incentivize buying homes so more people live in single family homes. if we tax something people do it less. tax carbon.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#60

Post by diplodocusaur »

Suppose we ceased to exist. Are we certain that nature would 'repair' itself? What's the 'good' state measured by (objective function)?

If we don't have it defined, I don't think we fully understand our relationship with the natural world and how to fix it.

Post reply on HN